Home Philadelphia Press Releases 2013 Financial Consultant Pleads Guilty to Fraud

Financial Consultant Pleads Guilty to Fraud

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 21, 2013
  • Middle District of Pennsylvania (717) 221-4482

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that August John Stile, Jr., age 49, of Hughestown, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty today to the defrauding investors of approximately $310,000 before United States District Court Judge Malachy E. Mannion.

According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Stile appeared in federal court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and admitted to devising a scheme to defraud private investors of money by fraudulently offering short term investment opportunities based upon a promise of a return of the investment with substantial interest in less than 90 days.

The criminal information alleges that Stile was the purported vice president of JFC Group and the president of Stile Consulting. JFC Group had an office in Dickson City, Pennsylvania, and Stile Consulting had an office in Exeter, Pennsylvania. Stile admitted today in federal court that rather than investing the money he received from investors to fund projects as promised, Stile utilized the funds for his own purposes.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Prosecution has been assigned to Assistant United States Attorney John Gurganus.

A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

In this case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 10 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public, and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational, and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.